ORDER : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 and to Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was selected on Group-C post in a selection proceeding and was granted ad-hoc appointment on the post of Clerk on 6.4.1998. A proceeding of direct recruitment was initiated by issuing advertisement on 17.4.2001. The petitioner challenged the advertisement by filing Writ Petition No.2779 (S/S) of 2001, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court on 25.6.2001 that until further orders of this Court, District Judgeship, Ambedkar Nagar was restrained to make any appointment for the post of Stenographer and Clerk in pursuance of the impugned advertisement dated 17.4.2001. 3. The State Government issued a notification by making amendment in U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 vide notification dated 20.12.2001, which is known as U.P. Regularisation of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001, whereby cut-off date was fixed in regard to the regularization of services of the employees who were granted appointment on ad-hoc basis prior to 30.6.1998. 4. Another proceeding was initiated for making direct recruitment by issuing advertisement on 1.3.2002, the same was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.7544 (S/S) of 2003, wherein direction was issued for consideration of claim of the petitioner for regularization. The bunch of writ petitions was taken up along with the writ petition referred hereinabove whereby vide order dated 1.8.2006, it was provided that all the employees who are working on ad-hoc basis may apply in response to the advertisement, their cases may be considered along with the other candidates. 5. It was left for the District Judge to send their names to the High Court on the administrative side for considering their cases for granting them relaxation in age as per provisions contained in sub-Rule (2) of the Rules of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and till the selection is over, the employees were allowed to continue in the service in the same capacity as they were holding. 6. 6. Another selection proceeding was initiated by issuing advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications to fill up Group-C post on 18.8.2006, which was also challenged in Writ Petition No.7686 (S/S) of 2006 (Girija Prasad Vs State of U.P. and others) wherein vide order dated 7.9.2006, the selection in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 18.8.2006 was stayed and subsequently, the advertisement was cancelled vide order dated 21.5.2018. The petitioner along with the other similarly situated employees of the District Judgeship, Ambedkar Nagar, represented their claim before the respondent No.4 for consideration of their regularization in pursuance to the Rules of 2001. 7. A grievance committee was constituted to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The committee examined the record of the petitioner and submitted a report on 12.7.2012. Considering the report of the grievance committee dated 12.7.2012, service of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 9.11.2012. 8. At subsequent point of time, an order was passed on 16.8.2014, whereby the order of regularization dated 9.11.2012 was recalled and a proceeding of recovery was issued against the petitioner. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5530 (S/S) of 2014 before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was clubbed with Writ Petition No.4813 (S/S) of 2014 and was heard together and has been decided vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2017, dismissing with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. 10. Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, Special Appeal No.444 of 2017 was filed, which was connected along with the Special Appeal No.440 of 2017 and decided vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2018, wherein following direction was issued: "(A) There is no illegality or error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge herein so far as it holds that the initial order of regularization of the services of the appellants-petitioners dated 09.11.2012 was illegal. (B) We are also in agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the District Judge did not commit any error or illegality while passing the order dated 16.10.2014 whereby the order of regularization of services of the appellants-petitioners dated 09.11.2012 has been held to be non-est and in-operative. (B) We are also in agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the District Judge did not commit any error or illegality while passing the order dated 16.10.2014 whereby the order of regularization of services of the appellants-petitioners dated 09.11.2012 has been held to be non-est and in-operative. (C) However, having said as above, so far as the claim of one of the appellants-petitioners namely, Manish Kumar Malviya for regularizing his services is concerned, we find it appropriate to direct the learned District Judge to consider the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Post within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 read with The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 and take his decision within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, he shall be engaged on ad-hoc basis forthwith, however, his continuance in ad-hoc capacity shall abide the outcome of consideration of his case for regularizing of his services to be made under this order. District Judge concerned is directed accordingly. (D) We, further, direct that no recovery of any amount already paid to the appellants-petitioners shall be made from them pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2014. (E) It is also directed that in case any regular recruitment process or selection against Class III posts takes place in future, the appellants-petitioners may be permitted to participate in the same at the discretion of the Court and for the said purpose the Court will consider grant of relaxation in age and also grant of preference to them by giving some benefit of length of service rendered by them in ad hoc capacity by taking a decision in this regard at an appropriate level. (F) The appellants -petitioners shall also not be liable to cost as imposed by the learned Single Judge." 11. In pursuance to the judgment and order passed by this Court on 9.7.2018, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected vide impugned order dated 3.10.2018 on the basis of the report of the grievance committee dated 5.9.2018. 12. (F) The appellants -petitioners shall also not be liable to cost as imposed by the learned Single Judge." 11. In pursuance to the judgment and order passed by this Court on 9.7.2018, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected vide impugned order dated 3.10.2018 on the basis of the report of the grievance committee dated 5.9.2018. 12. Assailing the impugned order, first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned order, certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, thus, the order is stigmatic in nature which cannot be passed without holding a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and without issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the judgment and order dated 9.7.2018, this Court directed to consider the claim of the petitioner being found eligible as per the cut-off date prescribed under the Rules of 2001, therefore, rejection of his claim is wholly illegal and contrary to the Rules of 2001. His third and last submission is that in view of U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the respondents would not have travelled beyond the scope provided in consideration of claim of regularization. 13. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1979, as amended in 2001, lays down the following provision: "4.Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.-(1) any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the order of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the order of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee. (4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates arranged in order of seniority, as determined from the date of order of appointment and, if two or more persons are appointed together from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other records of the candidates as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4). (6) The Selection Committee shall shall prepare a list of the selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order to seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority." 14. Although Rule 4 Sub Clause 4 of the Rules prescribes that while considering the claim of regularization, the competent authority shall take notice in regard to the character-roll of the ad-hoc employee. 15. On the other hand Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 pointed out that while considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the Rules of 2001, in case something adverse was found against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thus, on the point of finding recorded under the impugned order, which is adverse against the petitioner, the petitioner would have been provided opportunity of hearing. He very fairly submitted that on that score, the competent authority has committed error in considering the claim of regularization. 16. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also adopted the same analogy as has been adopted by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 17. In view of the respective submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. 18. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also adopted the same analogy as has been adopted by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 17. In view of the respective submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. 18. In regard to the first issue in consideration that the order which has been passed while levelling certain stigma, requires opportunity of hearing or not, this Court records that in case against a government servant, who is continuously working, anything is found adverse to him, the appointing authority would have given an opportunity to him to place his defence in the matter. Without giving opportunity of hearing, the employee would not have been punished, as has been done in the present case. 19. In view of the above, as per the finding recorded under the impugned order, this Court finds that it is stigmatic in nature, thus, the order would not have been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in regard to the adverse remark made in the impugned order. The order being violative of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law. 20. In regard to the applicability of the provisions of Rules of 2001, I perused Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. 21. On its perusal, it is evident that while considering the claim of regularization, first requirement is that the employee would have been appointed prior to the cut-off dated i.e. 30.6.1998 on ad-hoc basis. The second requirement was that he should have eligibility criteria prescribed for the appointment on the post against which he is claiming regularization. Along with the aforesaid, in Rule 4 Sub Clause 4, it has been prescribed that while considering the claim, the character-roll of the employee is also to be seen in passing the order of regularization. 22. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was granted ad-hoc appointment on Group-C post on 6.4.1998, thus, his claim for regularization is covered under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 and while passing the impugned order, the same would have been taken care of. The appointing authority upon coming on conclusion that there is certain allegation against the petitioner in regard to his unsatisfactory discharge in duties, while examining the character-roll of the petitioner, the petitioner would have been issued notice and provided opportunity of hearing in his defence. This part is missing in the impugned order, therefore, the order is per se illegal. 23. The impugned order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside. 24. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 25. The respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 26. It is however directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to work on ad-hoc basis on the post of Clerk and shall be paid salary accordingly.